Finding common ground between theories of collective action: the potential of analyses at a meso-scale

Abstract

Abstract:The theories of collective action relating to natural resource management and agricultural development are often considered to be polarized. The theories are divided into institutional economics with a focus on social dilemmas and sociology/anthropology. This article reviews the attempts to find common ground between the two groups. Several studies in sociology and anthropology have pointed out weaknesses in the approaches based on institutional economics. However, the criticisms have failed to trigger serious debate. Studies in each group have taken the initiative to "reach out" to the other, but so far the results have been limited. This article proposes an alternative approach to finding common ground between both groups. This involves focusing on the scales of validity of the research, i.e. the scale at which research results are considered valid. Many studies use or develop theoretical bases and build methodologies in order to obtain results that are deemed to be valid at a local or global scale. Other approaches use a meso-validity scale, e.g. one economic sector or one type of natural resource in a specific region. Some of these approaches organize a structured comparison between different cases of collective action and, at the same time, address the criticisms made by sociologists and anthropologists with regard to the approaches used in institutional economics. Research at a meso-validity scale can help establish common ground between the two main groups of theories concerned by collective action.

Water as a Mirror of Environmental Health: A Symbiotic Baseline Study in Costa Rica’s Osa Peninsula

“…This phenomenon defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2004), underlines a tragedy of the commons regarding water as a resource often polarized between institutional economics and social dilemmas, up to a global scale. Scaling biodiversity allows monitoring of ecosystem multi functionality therefore its importance for the 94 analysis of environmental health [10][11][12].…”

Ambivalences of collective farming: Feminist political ecologies from the Eastern Gangetic Plains

“…Commons studies have been grossly categorized in two bodies of scholarship: new institutional economics, and sociological and anthropological approaches (Faysse and Mustapha 2017). New institutional economics identify certain conditions under which people manage common pool resources, such as institutional arrangements, clear incentives (short and long term), property rights, leadership, a sense of ownership and transparent mechanisms for the sharing of benefits (Ostrom 1990;Agarwal 2000).…”